Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Accorsi doesn't believe in taking offensive lineman in the 1st round


Man Strength

Recommended Posts

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=3881101 (3/26 edition, about 14-15 min into it)

per Mel Kiper who also said they were good friends. An extreme elite LT is the only possible exception, but even then he's not that into it. The theory is they can be developed from later round picks.

the question then is, does gettleman believe this as well? if so, that changes our pool of options in the draft for sure, and definitely rules out picking an OG in the first and likely the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor does their Current GM for that Matter. he has never spent higher than a 60th pick(Will Beatty) on 1 since coming aboard in 97.

Its must be a Giant tradition or something because they have only one spent 1st round pick on an offensive lineman in the last 23 drafts. Thats was Luke Pettigout in 1999.

Sounds a little extreme to me but it is a fact. http://www.pro-footb...s/nyg/draft.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, then they better find somebody that can play RG. Cause fug going into 2012 with Gross-Silatolu-Kalil-Hangartner-Bell. Our depth is G. Williams, Campbell, Ziemba, Byers, Austin, and Z. Williams (who hasn't been healthy in 2 years). You guys dismiss OL to quickly. A quality offensive line can fix a lot of issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...